Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linux 2.4.5 Tested With Six Filesystems

Posted by timothy on from the never-never-never-never-give-up dept.

Denis Lackovic writes: "we tested kernel 2.4.5 with six filesystems: ext2, ext3, jfs, reiserfs, vfat, and xfs. You can find out the results here." The tests cover a number of situations, on decent but reasonable hardware.

3 of 10 comments (clear)

  1. ext3 stability by Michael+K.+Johnson · · Score: 4

    Just FYI, we're currently doing extensive stability testing of ext3 and getting good results. Part of the reason that ext3 is still considered beta is that Stephen is a perfectionist -- which doesn't bother me in the least! :-)

    --

    -- "Ever wonder why the SAME PEOPLE make up ALL the conspiracy theories?"
  2. close times by PD · · Score: 3

    The copying times are real close so that shouldn't make much of a difference. Same with the reading.

    The deletes are a different story. ext3 and reiser are quite a bit slower than jfs and xfs.

    xfs and ext3 are pretty fast for writing.

    So, I come to a different conclusion than the article does. For best all around performance, use xfs.

    Now, which one of all these is considered to be the most stable? All the performance in the world won't matter if the code hasn't matured to a point where files won't be scrambled.

    --
    If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
  3. Re:Tests are skewed by Erik+Hensema · · Score: 3

    Well then maybe the Linux VM isn't like other UNIX VMs. That's why it's broken ;-)
    I have seen Linux go into heavy swapping when copying a large file. I have seen kswapd processor utilisation go through the roof when copying large files.
    So there is stress on the broken parts of the 2.4.5 kernel. Maybe it decides not to swap, but that decision takes an awfull lot of time to make.

    --

    This is your sig. There are thousands more, but this one is yours.